I think it’s more about deliberately trading/delisting enough to push us into the bottom 4 for a number of years.
I would not consider Port’s trading of Wingard, Polec and Pittard in one season a rebuild. I’d consider that a refresh.
Thats not required or really desirable.
North ended up like that.
Its not required to “rebuild”.
See Hawthorn.
See Geelong(although arguably they are still carrying a few)
See Sydney(they have exploited some avenues such as generous academies to find a couple)
See Collingwood.
What the club does need to do though is not have too many of one elite type languishing in the twos.
Or you move on elite guys(for capital to get other guys in who can help you more) in your ones because you have a great guy available as backup to play the same role.
letting players who want out leave, rather than desperately fighting to keep them or drive a hard deal or whatever
1 Like
No definitive answer on that as situations change but it involves a decent cut of not just seniors and those not up to it but also getting picks in and balancing the list. A serious rebuild we let Redman and Parish leave when they re-signed.
This year I would still look to trade 2 of McGrath/Parish/Redman and look to trade Shiel, Hobbs, Wright, Stringer for starters
3 Likes
Yep, it’s great to have depth in a position, but we shouldn’t be using first round picks on depth, unless they are replacing older players in the near future.
Laverde and Kelly are both OOC or coming up to being OOC.
Trades of contracted players more come about from the players themselves wanting out for another club thats shown interest I would have thought.
Would Port be actively shopping Houston? He is contracted and usually one of their best players.
I would think both Shiel, Hobbs and Tsatsas would be regarded as gettable. Other clubs would be targeting them. Maybe Bryan too
In my view a rebuild is when you no longer select the team to win now, you select a team you hope can maybe win in 2 years time.
Means Bryan should’ve played every game over Goldy, Hayes over Lav, Roberts over Kelly/Hep, Hobbs/Tsatas over Shiel etc
Definitely meant Mass over Heppell in 2023.
Trying to win now is stupid, we aren’t good enough to win now, everyone can see that.
8 Likes
Hawthorn did spend multiple years down the bottom and traded out senior players to get extra picks/do worse. Twice, both with Clarkson and now Mitchell.
Sydney has no need to due to their academy.
Geelong have leveraged their 2007-2912 success to stay at the top and attract some of the league’s best talent. An incredibly stable and well performed management. We don’t have any of that. Screwed Gold Coast over multiple times.
Collingwood got 2x Daicos, Moore and Quaynor cheap. The side was also near the top when the expansion teams came in and have leveraged that.
Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, WCE all spent multiple consecutive years in the bottom five and surrounds before improving to win premierships.
North is much closer to a premiership than we are.
2 Likes
We have had some ordinary finishes in the last 8-10 years as well.
I dunno perhaps you just got to have a bit of patience.
The time to rebuild comes through bringing through mainly talls, it just takes time.
We have plenty of first round selections on our list.
@Ants shouldn’t be allowed to post anymore, until he admits he was completely wrong about Dodoro all these years. And then apologises for being a sycophant.
But hardly any from top 3-4 picks, which is the cream (Petracca, Martin, Bont, JHF, Walsh, Sheezel, etc). And the ones we do have (McGrath, Parish) the drafts by that stage weren’t great. Having a run of top picks over multiple drafts gives you a much better chance if getting 1-2 elite players.
(On Tsatas, I think it’s way too early to say how good he’ll be, or not).
Nice thread jack.
And I wasn’t wrong.
1 Like
LOL. Never change.
North are still shithouse though and are more likely to still lose players before they get good
And will still win a final before we do
2 Likes
I would have thought a “full rebuild” is one of those “gamut of options”, hence why I’m confused. I can make a case to delist, trade, whatever 19 of 44 players, but I don’t know whether I should be making that case in the list build thread or in the rebuild thread. Especially when the case would likely keep all of the current core and young players. Is getting rid of almost half the list a “full rebuild”? Is there even such a thing? Is it tank-o-rama where we cull everyone and anyone?
I think the entry point for this thread is “will you get rid of Parish, Langford and McGrath? If yes, this is the thread. Anything less than that is List Build thread.”
4 Likes
so if we get rid of some of our best what are we getting that is guaranteed to change things in 2 to 3 to 5 years?
nothing .
rebuild the old sense is a myth in modern footy as in, just get rid of everyone that has value , and get some maybe good ones back . the talent pool of quality players is smaller because there are more teams fighting for players now plus Tassie are coming so that will get even harder.
so we should be trying to do, is to get better at drafting and recruiting the right talent for our needs. right now it means forwards , forwards and more forwards, and we should be turning over players that can’t perform at the level more rutthlessly than we have been, and keep turning them, over until we succeed.
Yes, and I would say “here”. Keep the list management thread to suggestions the club might adopt!
1 Like
you’ve just tried to present the same strategy as two different strategies
3 Likes